http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/how-to-age-forest-trees2.jpg...

Not a very accurate chart I know but it is mirrored by other similar informations for a guestimate

An yes, I know it is an american table but netherless, 150 years for a 22 inch diameter tree would be about right

718 is relevant because climate change does not just effect upland ares but lowland as well.

If you would like to meet me I can show you many areas that are sucumbing to this  phenomena on the common. The proposed changes, plus grazing, plus, root reductions in the strata will exacerpate the problem.

At the upper terrace adjacent to the pine plantation (south) there is significant moisture here. This at the  the highest and most exposed point of the common. This is  indicated by the permanently sodden floor moss. This will be lost as soon as the trees are taken down and as the moisture levels drop.

Broad leaf oak canopy and our indiginous birches both assist in the retention of cooler, moister enviroments at ground level. You only have to walk around the common to see where the lushest and greenest grasses exist at the moment.

Deforestation is one of the most damaging things that can be done to an enviroment. Normally the felling of trees is offset by there planting elsewhere. Whilst a felled tree lying on the ground holds its carbon, the manpower, management and fuels, plant, transport cannott be called carbon neutral and act as a deficit.

Add to this that trees consume co2 and generate oxygen makes the validity for their cutting less credible.

The common has had more plant, machinery, work, manpower, recources, expended on it in the last two years than it has in the past one hundred. All this to create an unsustainable enviroment. Is this a green policy?

I notice the tree felling to the east of the pine plantations, in the gulleys headind towards the worcester road.

Were these cleared by our ancestors for agricultural means also. I think they are a bit to steep for man or beast.

In these areas, the protective layer of humus rich soil is know being washed away. More and more of the fresh red sand underneath is begining to show. This in turn is being eroded.

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/DSCF6601.jpg...

This oak is over a metre accross, not only was it cut down a week ago in the middle of the breeding season for birds but was uneccesarily cut to the floor. The cutting was subject to maintaince by a utility company but the tree should have enjoyed some protections. The felling is counter to guidlines used by E-on and central networks. There is another felled tree adjacent to this one.

I have answered you in turn, could you do me the courtesy of doing the same

Steve McCarron

#721: Steve McCarron - Re:

No offence but im going to question your forestry knowledge because you have not measured the trees correctly.

Diameter of a tree in such measurements is made by measuring the tree at breast height which is 1.5m off the floor of the ground. You use a different type of tape that measures more accurately than the one your using then divide by Pi. that will then give you the diameter that is required.

Measuring as you have from the stump is wrong because its not a diameter across and the stump of a tree is generally wider at floor level than the tree is at 1.5m. You growth factors are wrong as you say because they are american trees, the oaks you find in this country are Sessile, Holm (non native), Turkey (non native) or English and probably has a different growth factor to the US species

For a felled tree you are meant to count the rings of a tree as you can't measure the width and looking at the photo you first provided i reckon its about 30-40 years old. And then trees can produce 2 rings a year so your estimate may be double the actual count.

718 is irrelevant in that you removed a comment for being emotive and thats exactly what it is given you won't fine peat in the same conditions on the common

I don't know why you thinking the common is a woodland when it is specified as a heathland in the SSSI and its heathland plants. You continure to mention mositure but heahtlands can be dry and there is such recognition in the National Vegetation Classification and Phase 1 habitats.

"Dry heaths tend to be dominated by ling and bell heather. Nutrients from decomposed leaf litter are quickly washed through the sandy soils making the land inhospitable to many other plants. Dry, sandy areas are home to sand wasps and sand lizards." 
Thats a qoute from the Heathland Conservation Society

Removal of the trees is to make up for the years where trees were allowed to grow so if you balance it over time its fine and you think this place is bad for CO2 go to scotland and see their forest removals, the scale of the common compared to them is a drop in the ocean.

Steepness of ground is nothing have you not seen a welsh mountain sheep.....? or feral goats they don't have a problem with sheer rock cliffs, and i reckon i could cope up there as well ive been on worse. But the reason for removing the trees there is so it doesnt provide a site for recolonisation by the trees. (and yes i have seen the place in question and its not as bad as you make out.

Also as a keen wildlife watcher and bird enthusiaste we are not in the middle of the breeding season more the end, all of the birds will have laid eggs, hatched a brood, fledged them and moved on. You will only find the late breeders hanging around as the season generally finishes in the next 2 season but only for a small number of birds. If any are laying now its far to late for them to be successful as most of the food will have gone and its time for any migrants to build up their reserves

#721: Steve McCarron - Re:

The over a metre across tree, im assuming you thought was what a good 200-250 years old (given your measurement technique/calculation).

Hate to break it to you but its the grand old age of 63. About 4x times short of your estimation

Next time count the rings (you don't need a calculator just the ability to count)